Like with a business, you could probably buy the party - the name, the branding, and anyone happy with your new policies or too lazy to leave. But the best and the brightest would probably go off and start a new one of their own.
I expect that most of the people in charge of the Republican Party are emotionally committed to the idea that they're the "good guys" in an important fight. That doesn't mean that they don't have a price, just that it would tend to be very high. And since the Republicans is a voluntary association I'd expect that any rapid shift in policy big enough to be worth the investment would see the collapse and replacement of the Republican party.
Exerting the kind of influence that the Kochs do doesn't just require money, it also requires decades of hard and patient work. You've got to create institutions that attract people to work and publish on those issues where they happen to agree with you rather than where they disagree with you. You've got to make politicians feel that you're on their side and that listening to your spiel is just a matter of friendship, and you have to have a mountain of one sided evidence that lets them believe (and if you're their friend they'll be wanting to believe) that your proposition is Best For America.
But just buying a political party? I honestly think that if you're trying to accomplish a bunch of stuff quickly a coup would be cheaper and more realistic.
>I expect that most of the people in charge of the Republican Party are emotionally committed to the idea that they're the "good guys" in an important fight. That doesn't mean that they don't have a price, just that it would tend to be very high
Huh? I expect the very opposite. That the scum of the earth is what gets involved into politics AND reaches the higher echelons of both parties. Greedy, power-hungry, amoralistic people. If they had those kinds of "ideals" they left them behind far before they progressed into the party ranks.
It's not like congressmen historically gave us any reason to think otherwise...
The scum of the earth are often the same people as those who deeply emotionally feel they are good guys, I suspect, hard enough as it is to believe for people who try to avoid cognitive dissonance. Human behavior is more complex than Hollywood would have you believe.
Power hungry certainly, but if they were really greedy they could satisfy that far more easily in private industry for the same amount of talent and work.
As for morality, well, I think there are two factors at play there. Powerful people tend to become less moral in their treatment of people below them, but that isn't the same as being willing to compromise their ideals. Also, people seem to have a finite desire to be moral, and you can find studies about people being less likely to hold doors for others if they've recently donated to charity, for instance.[1] So if this hypothetical Republican leader feels that his political work is Defending Civilization from Barbarity[2] I imagine that they'd feel more free to be amoral in other aspects of their life. But that doesn't mean they'd be willing to sell out their cause itself!
>Power hungry certainly, but if they were really greedy they could satisfy that far more easily in private industry for the same amount of talent and work.
Not really. The private industry takes far more effort.
A guy like George Bush Jr. (family aside) could never had made it anywhere except maybe in a used car dealership in Odessa, TX, or as a McDonalds manager at Boise, ID. The same applies for most good at nothing, silver spoon fed, sons and daughters of statesmen, politicians and the like.
And it's not like what they make is their salary at the government or GOP. It's the under the table and side deals that make up most of it. Corporate contributions rarely stop at the party level.
